Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Lamb]

So you believe in salvation without repentance for really cute infants. [shrug] Scripture and I disagree.

I believe baptism brings repentance. If you have the gift of the Holy Spirit given to you, you have faith and repentance and everything else that God gives that's needed for salvation.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard,


You keep missing the point ... the word in the only verse you can find is “AND” not “THEN”.
So your entire apologetic falls.

The new Anabaptist tradition/invention you are selecting to try to support is Credobaptism, the dogma of radical Calvinism that FIRST in chronological time, a person must adequately prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and THEN, AFTER that is completed, only THEN is your supposed prohibition on Baptism lifted and the person may be baptized. But of course, like your fellow Calvinists, you can't find any verse that states that.

So all you have is Acts 2:38. Problem is, it doesn't state what you do, either. To do so, the verse would need to use one of the 3 koine Greek words that at least implies sequence, but none of those words are found in any verse that has anything whatsoever to do with Baptism. You keep proving, the word is not "THEN" but "AND."

This new Anabaptist tradition is not only entirely missing from over 1500 years of Christianity but (as you prove) from the Bible.




.

 

[atpollard]

You keep missing the point ... the word in the only verse you can find is “AND” not “THEN”.

Josiah,
YOU keep missing the point ... the word in the verse is “AND”, but you are only doing ONE of the TWO things commanded.

 

[Lamb]

Josiah,
YOU keep missing the point ... the word in the verse is “AND”, but you are only doing ONE of the TWO things commanded.

Baptism brings both faith and repentance in the infant.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard


YOU keep missing the point ... the word in the verse is “AND”, but you do as your new tradition mandates, you just delete the word "and" in order to substitute the word your invention requires, THEN.


The new tradition/invention you choose to TRY to defend is Credobaptism, the new theory that FIRST in chronological time, a person must adequately prove they have already accepted Jesus as their personal Savior and only THEN is your supposed prohibition on baptism lifted and one may then be baptized. Problem is, like all other Anabaptists for over 400 years, you can't find ANYTHING in the Bible that says that. All you have is instruction to a specific group that uses the word "AND" but not "THEN" - so you just delete the word of no use to you and substitute instead the word you need to help prop up this new invention of yours.


Your new Anabaptist invention is not only missing from 1500 years of Christianity but (as you prove) also from the Bible.




.

 

[atpollard]

Baptism brings both faith and repentance in the infant.

Says the Word of God ... nowhere!

 

[atpollard]

atpollard


YOU keep missing the point ... the word in the verse is “AND”, but you do as your new tradition mandates, you just delete the word "and" in order to substitute the word your invention requires, THEN.

Let’s test your sincerity.

I say that an adult that has been baptized but has not repented, has not been forgiven of his sins and received the Holy Spirit ... because he has not obeyed BOTH of Peter’s command.

Do you say that an infant that has been baptized but has not repented, has not been forgiven of his sins and received the Holy Spirit ... because he has not obeyed BOTH of Peter’s command?

This is about TWO conditions, not their order.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard,


Let’s test your tradition. You desire to prove the new Anabaptist tradition/invention of Credobaptism, that FIRST in chronological time one must adequately prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and once that is completed, THEN (after that), only THEN is the supposed prohibition on baptism lifted and the person may THEN be baptized.

Your entire new tradition is about order, sequence, a dogmatically mandated chronological ORDER - FIRST proof of choosing Jesus, THEN the supposed prohibition on baptism is lifted and that person may then be baptized. Your dogma is NOT "no one can be given faith unless they are BOTH baptize and repent - the order of those doesn't matter as long as both are done." Credobaptism invention of the Anabaptists is all about sequence and rests entirely on FIRST.... THEN.

You have joined with every other Anabaptist in over 400 years in not finding even one verse that says that, yet you keep directing us to all you've got - Acts 2:38. But that verse doesn't state Credobaptism; nope, as you keep proving, it states "AND" not the required "THEN." The word "and" does you no good, it doesn't help your cause at all. You need it to say "THEN" not "and." So, you just want everyone to pretend the word is "THEN" even though you prove it's not.




.

 

[Lamb]

Let’s test your sincerity.

I say that an adult that has been baptized but has not repented, has not been forgiven of his sins and received the Holy Spirit ... because he has not obeyed BOTH of Peter’s command.

Do you say that an infant that has been baptized but has not repented, has not been forgiven of his sins and received the Holy Spirit ... because he has not obeyed BOTH of Peter’s command?

This is about TWO conditions, not their order.

The adult outright rejects the Savior will not receive forgiveness and have eternal life when he dies. We both agree on that.

Repentance comes to the infant along with the Holy Spirit when faith is given through the waters and also has forgiveness of sins. You keep insisting that God doesn't do anything in baptism yet "be baptized" is passive meaning something happens to the person.

 

[FredVB]

No one gives themselves the gift of faith and spiritual life.

We have "family baptisms" where "everyone in the household" was baptized and we know NOTHING of all the ages, etc. of the people in those households. It COULD be all of them had celebrated 12 or 15 or 18 birthdays (however many you think is mandated) but there's NOTHING in the text that remotely suggests that..... it COULD be all of them recited the Sinner's Prayer and went down for an altar call but there's NOTHING in the text that remotely suggests that.

But there's another problem with that apologetic. We are NOT required to follow what is DONE in the Bible. If I went to your church on a Sunday, probably 99% of what I witnessed is not illustrated as done in the Bible - yet your church does it. Or switch to Communion..... I assure you, in the Bible it was NOT celebrated with little plastic cups filled with Welch's Grape Juice and little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread passed around to everyone in the pews (kids, seekers, etc). Unless you are willing to do NOTHING not illustrated as done in the Bible, this doesn't hold.... if you don't follow your own rubric, it's invalid to require others to.





.

There is responsibility of all to choose, they need to respond with repentance and come to faith for salvation which Christ makes possible. God gives salvation, from God's own work, on such basis.

You need to read a lot into Acts 16:30-33 without any basis from any scriptures to conclude that all in the household were baptized without repentance and coming to faith for salvation which Christ made possible. The text there says itself the jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas let him know, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household." And, they spoke this to all his household, Acts 16:32. They all needed to do this. They were not all going to be saved by just the jailer's faith. So they needed and were saved with that repentance and faith, and so they were all baptized. He and his household all believed, Acts 16:34.

Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9, Joshua 24:15, Job 34:4, Proverbs 1:29, Isaiah 56:4.

Infants are certainly not with the capacity to choose in these ways, and parental care is truly needed for them. Just being baptized regardless of any repentance and confession of faith gives no assurance in any way. Mark 16:16, believing is essential, also Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, Acts 10:47, Acts 18:8.

Don't use the false flag of me requiring things of others. I do nothing in sharing what I know from the Bible but share what I know from the Bible. Any seeing things from that communication can choose to do things from that themselves on their own. Any can still ask me questions though.

And I have not been in any church since the pandemic issue had places closing. I have gone online to church services, and not just Sunday, but for Sabbath on the seventh day. There are Seventh Day Baptist churches. The issue is not whether things done are innovations since the time things were written which are in the Bible, the issue is whether those things have what is written in the Bible being understood differently than what was intended. And this is what is happening.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

The New Testament refers to "whole households" being baptized on the profession of the head of the household, so that's Biblical evidence that age is not a prerequisite for baptism (nor is there any such requirement to be found anywhere in Scripture).

You're not planning on second-guessing all the basic beliefs and practices of orthodox Christianity, one after another, are you? They have all been discussed ad nauseum around here already, so I hope not.

You are projecting into the text, which is eisegesis. Neither verse in Acts 16 says that Paul and Silas baptized every person in the household based upon Lydia's confession or the jailer's confession. It just says that they were baptized...and their household.
It would be a wonderful relief if we all would exegete Bible passages and accept what they actually say.
I'm done with attempting to persuade people here to treat the scriptures with sacred awe. If y'all want to use eisegesis and project dogma into verses, that's on you. I won't partake in it.

Where does it say “except infants”?
Acts 2:38-39 this “promise” (ez 36:25-27) is to you’re children!

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Infants have no sun to repent of so it don’t apply to infants

 

[Lamb]

Infants have no sun to repent of so it don’t apply to infants

Infants are born sinful according to scripture, sinful since conception even. All have need of a Savior and in baptism they too are clothed in Christ.

 

[Josiah]

There is responsibility of all to choose, they need to respond with repentance and come to faith for salvation which Christ makes possible. God gives salvation, from God's own work, on such basis.

I respectfully disagree....

True, repentance and faith are a set (so to speak) but nowhere does Scripture mandate a certain sequence and nowhere does Scripture state that the gift of faith is dependent upon the dead unregenerate enemy of God FIRST repenting.

But I think my greatest problem with your condition is not that it's not found in Scripture (or Tradition) but that it means that Jesus saves those who FIRST have performed a good work... it's a reward for the dead, lifeless, enemy of God (entirely void of God) having DONE something. It's salvation dependent upon our good works (well, one good work).

I believe that Jesus is the Savior. He saves. It is "dependent" upon HIM (and He alone) since He is the Savior (and He alone). If there are conditions, He does them... not the unsaved, dead, lifeless, unregenerate enemy of God void of God. Now, YES, of course, faith ON OUR PART is necessary to secure/apprehend the saving work of Jesus (ALONE) but even there, it's not our good work since faith is the "free gift of God" as Scripture says.

You need to read a lot into Acts 16:30-33 without any basis from any scriptures to conclude that all in the household were baptized without repentance and coming to faith for salvation which Christ made possible.

I believe the opposite is true. It makes an ENORMOUS assumption - a LOT of eisegesis - to insist that (although Scripture says NOTHING of our sort), every person baptized in those "households" FIRST (before coming to life, before having a relationship with God, before the Holy Spirit) FIRST repended to God (before they believe in God, before they hold that God forgives, before they can have forgiveness)... FIRST recited "the Sinner's Prayer"... FIRST jumped through who knows how many hoops... and the dead, lifeless, atheist, enemy of God did all kinds of good works... only THEN were they given life, the Holy Spirit, faith and forgiveness, a reward for the unregenerate atheist enemy of God doing good works (void of faith). No. I think that's forcing a LOT of stuff into the text....things IMO contrary to Scripture which says that our works do NOT save... which says Jesus is the Savior (not self)... that says salvation is "the free gift of God lest any have reason to boast."

Infants are certainly not with the capacity to choose in these ways

Nor is the 60 year old man with 5 Ph.D's, an IQ of 230 and with every word of the Bible memorized. NO ONE is CAPABLE of even saying Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. Faith and salvation are the FREE GIFT of God lest ANYONE (including said genius) have any reason to claim anything for themselves. There is one Savior. The job is taken. He does it. He does it all, He does it right.

the issue is whether those things have what is written in the Bible being understood differently than what was intended. And this is what is happening.

Well, in the last 450 years or so. Before that, 100% of Christians embraced infant baptism. It wasn't until the Anabaptist movement in Germany in the late 16th Century that a TINY number of Christians first began to see some prohibition in the Bible to baptize before the age of we-won't-tell-you." The fairly recent (and still rare) innovation is this prohibition.... not infant baptism.


Blessings on your Advent season!


Josiah




.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Infants are born sinful according to scripture, sinful since conception even. All have need of a Savior and in baptism they too are clothed in Christ.

Sorry I meant sin

no infants have no personal sin to repent of
They need the savior and the grace of baptism and the Holy Spirit and to be washed from original sin yes

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Hobie is some cat! He never responds! Never asks questions!

he is a hit an run spammer

 

[Lamb]

Sorry I meant sin

no infants have no personal sin to repent of
They need the savior and the grace of baptism and the Holy Spirit and to be washed from original sin yes

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Original sin yes

 

[Albion]

Infants have no sun to repent of so it don’t apply to infants

What exactly is it that makes you so loyal to the Catholic Church, considering that you disagree with her on doctrine after doctrine?

 

[Fritz Kobus]

What is meant by a whole household being baptized? Did they include underaged family members in the general term "whole household" or did they mean only adults.

Even if whole household included babies, does the Bible reporting that such was done equate to a command to baptize babies? The Bible reports a lot of things that are not proper to do, that are not commands, but happened. They are reported because they happened. The fact remains that there is no verse in the Bible commanding babies to be baptized.

How many babies over the centuries have been baptized and never embraced the Christian faith? I suspect the majority. Isn't that an insult to God to baptize someone against their will or without their consent? Especially if they go off to become worldlings (partly perhaps because the parents sent them to Caesar's school system).

Baptizing of babies was done in the early church by some, but not all. It became a mandatory thing when the church and state comingled under Constatine and remained so for about 1000 years.

Tell me anyone, does a baby go to Hell if it is not baptized, but Heaven if it is baptized?

How would you counsel a couple who lost a baby from stillbirth?

Matthew 19:14 (But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.) is used by some churches to say we must baptize babies, but the text does not say Jesus baptized these children who came to him. Nor is it likely that these children had already been baptized. So it seems that Jesus is saying all Children belong to the Kingdom of Heaven.

The strange ritual of confirmation seems to be a result of infant baptism. They get the kids to confess faith and then can't baptize them becasue they already have been baptized, so they have to make up a ritual that is not in the Bible.

By the way, I have seen confirmation classes like this and suspect that many kids are not ready for confirmation but do it anyway because of pressure from the parents. That does not seem like a good thing.